To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

t â– ..'.,, 1 nm 11 11 in t bai1i8bury n (' tuesday augjbt 22 1826 vol vii no ;â€¢.Â»â– i ' in the lirst i these 1 i : lhe case lhen being in thi i oui 1 1 i i 11 . 11 im dell ' eiiain p nts were submitted to the supreme court and a decree wai made hero and entered in i distribution is no aftected by thi sialic i i limitations being the case i _ trustlo which the statue has no application in such case lime is not a bar but a tiiuin stance from which u presumption my arise thai the demand has been settleiby p.j-m.n .â€ž l,â€žnlsi a nrout lips o lime affords a strong presumption usi such presumption may be repelled b lads explanatory of the delay and though the court vill nat encour age claims brought forwa'd aller a great clllux of time but will resume againsl ibem yet where the dcl>y is satislactori ly explained and the prciumption of satis faction sufficiently renoved tl.e e.piiiy ol lhc claimant reniaiis unaffected and lhc court will decree lor him notwith standing the great lapie of lime in regard lo lime equity acts by analo gy lo statute law or k common law mid time ha the same effect us ut law in the analogous case where tho statute ap plies nm is a postivc bar may he pleaded or is the gnuiid of demurrer and the right can only bc suved by the same exceptions as al law hate that cl feet it seems that equities of redemption and consiruclive trustsarc cÂ»s-sin which ctpiily acts by analogy lo lhc sbtutc an tune should bc a bar in itself bicordilc o he recent decisions in l-'uglan hut when the rule as lo time was ndowd in this state in such cases ctpiity ws sup posed io act in analogy to the cannon law hence thc time adopted wa twen ty ycurs and hence also it was cisidcr ed us only affording a presumdoii ol fact and not as a positive bar ihoiigb this notion was incorrect and pppcrly seven years is thc period ami shoild l.e a bar in analogy to our statx of linita tions yet thc notion has been si ling adopted â€” is supported by stab a trail o decisions and so much prop ity drpmd upon il ihat il is now loo l c lo disur im , 1 e " 1 â€¢ io v , -', m carolinian are *â€¢', 8 a ' â– '// â– ' '"Â« ' '.'.", ep a 1 il uoi til the llitoi , uni . igci ate paid â€¢ ' ' nl he in-.-rl.-.l al ill's hi per i'niie inr ii flri insertion and twenty-live cenl for eacl bsequen one ah ie , " '" "" 1 â€¢"""> p â€ž. the is ill mil be mo do '"â– il.ld he indictment cannol bi ed for nt the common law no i.rat was ihe bubjectof criminal pro except tine accomplished by some false token ol a public nature and promiuu ry noies of themselves are not publii 1 . 1 '"",' l,j " k ""'â€¢'' are public tokem and had 11 been averred thai ih lies il .,,,, lion resembled or were in the likeness i oi bank holes lhe indictment would have bee sufficient i lieretolbr the - m ol gl i â– interest nn 8*>i 9 x from the 3 hi of june 1836 agai . the execu tori oi i osilch and bill retained as i ihc defendant kivi i â– -. nelliia.1 i â€žâ€¢ i ,..â€ž. ii .. ,,,,â€ž.. filed ii ibe court below and a re-hearing having been ordered tbe cause was transmitted to ibis court for hearing in the second of these cases a decree was directed by the supreme court and entered in the court below and thc de cree having been enrolled a bill of re view was exhibited and a decree the e upon pronounced in the court below from which un appeal was taken o ibis court here it was objected hat the decreet complained of were decrees of thia <*"...,, or ai least decrees directed by this court to be made below and that neither u petition to re bear nor a bill o review could be entertained by the conn below : but /,,.',/, by two judges that the decrees of the court below and as such re-ex amlnable by bill ...' petition below whether they were pronounced by thc judge upon bis own opinion or upon conference with the other judges one judge contra airman ,/' washington count court v liar nd and others judgment af firmed the court below for the plaintiffs a ''â– ' ' * ' â– ' ; â– , from per [""â– udgcmcnl of ihe superior ' uurl supreme court i indictment against two for an ollray in alt iiialiltlnd and lighting wilh each oibei conviction ai to une and acquittal alio the other ji dgment can not b pronounced egaimi the party son si ie 11 for mi iisaull and battery i he following are lhe principal cause de termined hy ihe supreme court at its las sea lion villi the puin is of law which they in volved appended i for mich we are indebted to lhl raleigh kegister jesse person v the slate hank from wake judgment affirmed twenty warrants were brought hy the plaintiff 01 bank notes in the whole amounting to s104 judgments were obtatlicdi and appeals taken by the defen dants ill the county court the eases ... re ordered to bo conaolldated into one nod from his order nl consolidation be plain iff appealed 0 the superior court where the order waa affirmed held ihat the court bad the power lo â– nake the order and the power being possessed i was lucre matter of discre 1 ss in ther ii should bc execute i in this case and upon what terms ] doe i ute f hi ten v ml a nnie ,â€ž..! other horn wayne judgment affirm ictloni execul.i v llanng and ll'i ' there in equity from lenoir acvi.m t i t a k el1 i v ,|, c miner i tl'l lain unless the panics agree nn iome iher person ami report to be made at nextkerm i ii v having several children o the elder olwhoin be bad made considerable advancements made bis will and after devising and bequeathing real and per si.nal elate to bis wile and to his am gcr chili en ami confirming ihe advance mentl itulc to the elder directed the residue 1 his estate ical aid personal to be sol and ibe proceeds 10 be divi del ainmg all his heirs according to the st.sute f distributing of intestates s held the word " heirs as here used leans heirs quo ad the properly and no children " ncx of kin or " heirs a law r v ll la ,â€ž i j 1 whom the law appoints hi bucceed bene finally tu tl.e property in question i be whole ol the property here is personal for the land being directed tu be sold and the pioceeds divided is regarded iu this court as personalty therefore tin widow of the testator is entitled under that term â€” slit being by law appointed to succeed to personal property as well as tbe children all claiming under the ~-Â» <Â«.- ._- n â– â€¢â€¢.. article in the lutno.nfmlliniin'i 1 '."'. itl i follovvi igtitlc " p | t ,. ip i and powerful currents base iwcp lad Â«'"'. 1 surfaci .' earth " ll.erc are many indications that a powerful current has passed over tho conn un of america from north to south and over asia from a ."â– !, i - north ; nnd the author of this anii ie accounts for these appearances by sup posing that a change has al some peri od tak n place in the velocit i the earth's motion on her axis the su face of the earth at the equator revolv â€¢ at the rate of more than loih miles ,''',,. o,s r j or noo feet n . -.,â€ž!, i on ii is a ui , , ..... ... in velocit ". - cannon ball we have no idea l cir cular motion like this a wheel ol w rough iron of three feet in iliaincin will fly in pieces before il reaches ., vclociy of 4-1)0 feet per second sup posing ihe earth should be slightly i becked in her daily million the paci fic ocean would in a moment rush ovct the amies and alleghailicb into the atlantic the atlantic would sweep over europe asia and africa and in a few hours ihe entire bui face ol the i a levy on chattels vests in the f ncnii is evwonce agaimii his iecui iii.-s i .. del a special properly and this it is ihat due from bis intestate but such judg enables him to sell alter the return day ment is not evidence as against sue of lhe wtit and without a vend exp but securiliea thai tbe administrator had as a levy on bands gives him neither pro sets to satisfy ihe judgment pcrty nor right of possession be has the inventory returned by an adminli only a naked authority to sell and a sale rotor is prima facte evidence of asset transfers to the purchase only the right agains his securities or property to whii h the she ill cannot â€ž mur v . k :,. k . i udgmcnt reve ,. 5e a dd an actual possess without the and new trial ordered consent ul the trn.,11 1 he rchre a sale ... , u , , , â€ž . ,. made in tl.e a in of real estate alter '" iz e ,'* l '" y ' fr Â° m "*' the return of , fi !.,. and â€¢ ill , â€ž new coln * 'â– '" dismissed with costs suit is ,, sale wiihot ithorlty and â€ž sr ! h li <*<'''"' v ouron and others in passes nothing i the p laser equity i he decree below dismissing it teems a lew on real estate shewn the bill affirmed with costs only by .... endorsement on the writ and pugh v maer and others in equity such endoneinen made after the return from franklin injunction dissolved and day of ibe process is nol valid j decree for defendants governor loth ust of hotcomh,v mar l a Â» injunction granted upon the pay tin and others from siniy judgment ment of the money recovered at law into affirmed tbe office of the master will not be lis the bct of 1818 ch 080 n it lnu "'â– 'Â«Â» â€¢"--- ' ,.'. makes it lhe official duty ol a constable *<Â»â€¢ olir months after the rendition of 0 collect claims put into bis bands with Â«â€¢â– j ud 8 n < c zz z f r wi.hou suit therefore where a note ">Â« Â»Â« "Â« is *' injunctions af v s l liver d to a constable ... collect and â€¢" r â„¢ r m Â°"< h Â« lr ""' ,*'"- nr /Â»" to ined judgment and received ih 0 prevent delay and hazard to creditors '"â– , ., . i .â€ž.. i â€ž,.,â€¢â€ž but this is cllccuallv accomplished by the nionev irom the i.ch'.or vvuliuir cxecu . , ,,," ,. ' . 'â€¢,.,,, .,, ' .â€ž!,. .,:â€žâ€ž ,.,â€ž terms imposed i o elissolve the lniunc ti in held that is was a cnllcctl.ni x,r . ,'. , . r , , , luii ,,,,,â€ž ,,.,,,. lion on this ground therefore ; would bc lute allien and ibe non pavmeiit by the e . r . â– â€¢. r u instable a breach of the condition of his 'Â° fice the manifest spirit of the act bond to pa " all sums of money Â« be l Â° Â»Â° l construction should collect by virtue of bis office ' onnan v jones in equity from w akc the holder of a note ithouch not in bill dismissed ,', .. | io him who places it ill the hands the plaintiff wbb security for one (,. 01 a â– , instable for collection is entitled to tllc defendant the administrator ol the em ml payment from he conatable creditor obtained judmentb at law against therefore if payment be refused be is the principal and security in a joint ac ., the person injured who may bring the i u p'*n * vl ch tbe plamull filed this action on the office bond under the act bill to be relieved against the judgment el 17 cli ht n \ ) on tl.e ground that be was discharged in " ;/,'â– v wrights oxxa parish from equity by the laches and forbearance of i i ... , i i .,â€ž.., the creditor the facis constituting this i sil ,-. in lc.i t.t lese ill nil ncsv . , , . Â° , ; -" ' , , ' equitable ground weie proved by thc trial awarded deposition of 0 the principal debtor and aciononajusiico udgment Â» â€žâ€ž , 0 i e question was whether be was . lhe trial iho judgment berng proved uu ' ror he mu . be defendant offered the ju tice as ., wltneas recovered either to cannon the o shew that tne judgment was confessed , defendant ; ye hcf.ue him at a plat e o it o hi county ! , , d dcfea ,^, the loint hefow reirr ei this evidence , . . , . â€¢; , , i , ,- . i '"-". ,, , , , , ,. â€ž - ,â€ž, : c-1.,1 n in win b event be would bc liable r "" '" ""* ( z v " ' ' 'â– ;' "â– "* ? l lo the cost of one suit only whereas if *â€¢","â– '' ';''\ , lv v v asl ' l cerds against riuiiion the latter ol ram v hunt 3 h ss 5 z this court r(l , iv , r Â« ns , ( . hc cos(5 ,,,â€ž of ruled that assumpsit would not he n â– i â€žâ€ž., ,, ro ,,', , . j one , g . will derive justice's iudgmcnt because the nc a ,.â€ž.,.,â€ž, , k ., ll . ri , ) or receive a certain in or such judgment are not examinal in an . rnm lho decwon , n bo n ade and original suit and in tins respect an i in ' . , dlrect , iiucrc5 , cd in lha tins only likened 1 to a record but th / cau , e .", that decision has no heaimg on the pic ' ,,.,â€žâ€ž sen case there tbe existence of a '''Â»'*'"'â– ' Â»â€¢ "''"Â»"" flom w " r Â«-' judgment properly rendered was pre-sup judgment affirmed posed and the quest was as to its in an aclion for an assault and battery effect here lhe existence ol a proper the only question being the amount ol judgment is the question in issue-and damagea the judge instructed the jury until its existence is establish !. the en Â»"< y tzzz'ozeuz , â€¢â€ž. rr ,, 1 â€ž ,,., , ones on and ihat by placing themselves 0 tl proeeedbig ol slice a^e not lÂ»tb situation of the pl.lnoff and em records and do not prove ilicmsolves quiring what compensation they should they are public writings lobe proved h'ink adequate and would receive for bv parol evidence and ihat evidence may well n jury the justice of the case ny | aro cvis evidence of the mi ls hl be attained a verdict was found m.Â°fi th conclusive effect ol f 81000 held that auch instruction ,, 1 i ,. t i,!i g b is sn was no i round lor a new tn nl these proceedings when .'-â– uu siicu is so r j far from being a reason foi rejecting lhe falls and others v torrance in equity pi oof offered here that sound policy re from iredell decree for l'laiutiffs for quires thc clearest evidence to he nil ncg.o l.lora und her increase duced of the existence of ihat which if it j a purchase by an administrator enures exist is conclusive in its operation on j solely to the benefit of lhe next of kin the rights of the parties ] | and the lave purchased remains in the drvrreux v cape fear rani in hands of the administrator after the aalo equity tron wake lujunction ilia upon the same trust a before one solved wilh costs marrying an administratrix is trustee ol llen-icn's f.x'rs v lenoir and others the intestate's properly in the same man in equity from iredell , i ncr as his wile was o | ecially if he have griffin heirs v griffin's ex'rs ami notice ihat it was the property ol the in others in equity from johnston testate thc clsim ofthe next of kin to [ a iudgmcnt against an ndministratoi same statute thc bur pi us meiuinned in thin clause in to bc divided among those entitled without any reference to the advance tents or propeity bequeathed by oilier eauh would be convered with lushing i.nii rn i exci pting perhaps the icini tv l the p.d.s the appearances presi nted on the surface of the earth says this writer are precisely such as we should expect nltei sm h a 1.1 i tastn.pl c in cases of direct or pure trusts tme has no influence the estate of the trus tee is that which supports tic trust.nnd without which it could not exist ant his possession operates for the benefit ofthe cestui que trust the trustee cannot by any act of his make his estate and pos session adverse to the cmhil que ttust the trust owes its existence to aprce par'ucs"'yo ycstroytrr l !. lifanwut ?/ lilt trustee be guilty of wrongbil conduct he docs not cease thereby lo bc a trustee and of lhe same kind of trust as before such conduct â€” but il is ll thc election of the cestui que trust to c sider the trust at an end if he please and treat thc trustee as a wrong doer moore v moore in equity from enfold plaintiffs bill dismissed with the right lo contribution among co uretiea i founded o iginally not in any contract between them but on thc n.ax im of natural equity tha equality is equity among persons standing in the now iffi-'misaisnyu^atajfltow jdsll'.s of equity an understanding is inferred among co-sureties of mutual contribu tion lor men are presumed io acl in re fcrencc to the laws governing lhc ttatis action j hence t'ourts of law now give re lief by action of assumpsit lo ono surety against another but bis principle of equity can only apply to those whose situations arc equal ; for equality among those whose situations are unequal is not equity hut if one surety stipulate for a separate indemnity the equality of situation between him and his cosurety ceases and the principle docs not apply this indemnity may indeed bc reach cd in favor of thc co surely hut it is mi one of two grounds either t bit it was taken in fraud of lhc co surety or inlcii ' urf.ftra ivi'n we gave an account in the register effect produced by the simple appll a tion of suit and water to a large wen or tumour on lhe neck ol a cilizcn ol this county who bad t.ieil without success lhe prescriptions of various physicians we stated as was tho case that from the moment this bolu tion was applied ihe wen del reused gradually in size anil finally ii.ap peared we thought this a remarka ble cure and published it we vi â– :, teril.iy received a communication irom i respectable gentleman in sampson count , who states ihat being severe ly afflicted with a large 111,110:11 ol some isinil under his eye which was pro nouih ill hy most persons to he a ran cer be saw in this paper the account abo ,â€¢ allowed to ami immediately de termined to try the saline preparation lie did so and in six wicks the tu rn 1 en un ly disappeared and he add-i thai he is now perfectly well this is so simple a remedy ihat some may deride 11 but we advise persons simi larly afflicted to make the experiment hal ; : l regitttr bite of a batilesnakf state v joinner from pitts judgment ofthe superior court reversed and new trial awarded indictment on thc 3d section of thc act of 1818 ch 985 n r against a mother for concealing the death of a bastard child upon lhc constitution of ibis statute held by a majority of the court that the corpus delicti is the con cealment of the death nf a being upon whom the crime of murder could have born dead no concealment of the body would bc an offence within the statute but concealment by thc mother supples cs thc means of ascertaining whether the child was born alive or nol and raises a presumption of guilt againsl her â€” there lore it is not incumbent on the prosccu lion to shew ihat the child was born alive but thc burthen of shewing the contrary lies upon the accused hut held by one judge that the act docs not by the word " death men the act of dying the transi tion from life to death ; but concealing the lifeless body is a concealing " the death within the statute if the child wer ded lor bis benefit if taken secretly il is a fraud on lhc oilier sureties for 1st the transaction inports mutual risk ond united exertions and div the indemnity weakens llieobil ity ofthe principal to indemnify lhe oth er h taken without such secrecy.it is presumed to be dcsiglied lor lhe benefit hence if an indemnity be fairly taken by otic surety and exclusively for his own benefit be may rightfully sc it un lil he is completely indemnified itut if in this case a surplus remain alter thus indemnifying the security who has taken it the benefit of such surplus must be communicated to the ensure lies i for benevolence dictates sin b com munlcalion among ilu.-.e who arc invol ved in a connexion so intimate and a common danger and lo obey the dictates of benevolent e becomes a duly when such obedience is not prejudicial to our uf all thr following is recommended as an effectual remedy against the fatal elicits ol the lite ol a hatllesnake ii nl the common pole-root until itbe comes quite soft then mash it up iu lhe water which remains anil apply it as a poultice to the wound this remedy is s.i'nl to have been most mi i.u i:li:n ,!) tested by thc hunters l mil uiri among whom it is now in gen ral use â€” and that ulirn an imme di rn application is made the poison will not manifest itself more strungjy than llie sling '.< a bee issue of lhc body is itself proof irrcsi tiblc that life accompanied and actual il up to the stage of maturity in whi we beheld it and whether that life exi led or not at its birth is immaterial ] parkier v colquhxun and others in orange cause remanded to the court below in the court below an order of publi cation us to â– 'â€¢ c an absent life iol.it â€” and afterwards an order selling lhc cause down for healing and removing it to this otirt lt did not appear from any thing in the transcript that thc publication had been made or a/im confetso taken selves held that these principles were deci sive against the plaintiff's claim fur he became surely for thc principal without asking or wishing any indemnity ; when another name was required ibe defend ant before becoming bound stipulated for a lien as a counter security to him self the lien therefore was nol inlem ded for plaintiff's benefit the plaintiff was subscribing witness to the deed crea ling the lien and so there was n sci re cy and consequently no fraud the equably of situa'lon being thus destroyed without fraud and ther being no inteiilion lo benefit complainant it follows that he cannot call on tl.e uelcnd ant for contribution n his loss colquet v ll sin a and others from llu therford in equity master's report confirmed it i i mplslnaiii i nil i mt warts the milky juice of the ilk ol spurge or of the common fig leaf by persevering application will lo a cer tain so i remove llicm held thai setting the cause lor hear ing was irregular this coun can take cognizance of â€¢ cause removed only af ter it is set for hearing below an irre gular order setting the cause down for hearing is equivalent to no order therefore thla court cannot proceed on thomas kemp hanged f sheet llrre best i body of tl " kemp who lived by wool but died b in mp . tbeie's nothing would sufl 1 llot but with the ii â€¢. to itesl die million . had be but ss'irk'l hill liv'd upiighter lie 1 1 ' it been inn _ f t a ibeep-bitci state v palillo from lincoln judg ment arrrcsted indictment for a cheat at common law by passing certain " promisory notes as and for bank notes â€” and no aieiiiieot thai thc holes paised resem bled bank note

The SA of NC considers this item in the public domain by U.S. law but responsibility for permissions rests with researchers.

Language

eng

FullText

t â– ..'.,, 1 nm 11 11 in t bai1i8bury n (' tuesday augjbt 22 1826 vol vii no ;â€¢.Â»â– i ' in the lirst i these 1 i : lhe case lhen being in thi i oui 1 1 i i 11 . 11 im dell ' eiiain p nts were submitted to the supreme court and a decree wai made hero and entered in i distribution is no aftected by thi sialic i i limitations being the case i _ trustlo which the statue has no application in such case lime is not a bar but a tiiuin stance from which u presumption my arise thai the demand has been settleiby p.j-m.n .â€ž l,â€žnlsi a nrout lips o lime affords a strong presumption usi such presumption may be repelled b lads explanatory of the delay and though the court vill nat encour age claims brought forwa'd aller a great clllux of time but will resume againsl ibem yet where the dcl>y is satislactori ly explained and the prciumption of satis faction sufficiently renoved tl.e e.piiiy ol lhc claimant reniaiis unaffected and lhc court will decree lor him notwith standing the great lapie of lime in regard lo lime equity acts by analo gy lo statute law or k common law mid time ha the same effect us ut law in the analogous case where tho statute ap plies nm is a postivc bar may he pleaded or is the gnuiid of demurrer and the right can only bc suved by the same exceptions as al law hate that cl feet it seems that equities of redemption and consiruclive trustsarc cÂ»s-sin which ctpiily acts by analogy lo lhc sbtutc an tune should bc a bar in itself bicordilc o he recent decisions in l-'uglan hut when the rule as lo time was ndowd in this state in such cases ctpiity ws sup posed io act in analogy to the cannon law hence thc time adopted wa twen ty ycurs and hence also it was cisidcr ed us only affording a presumdoii ol fact and not as a positive bar ihoiigb this notion was incorrect and pppcrly seven years is thc period ami shoild l.e a bar in analogy to our statx of linita tions yet thc notion has been si ling adopted â€” is supported by stab a trail o decisions and so much prop ity drpmd upon il ihat il is now loo l c lo disur im , 1 e " 1 â€¢ io v , -', m carolinian are *â€¢', 8 a ' â– '// â– ' '"Â« ' '.'.", ep a 1 il uoi til the llitoi , uni . igci ate paid â€¢ ' ' nl he in-.-rl.-.l al ill's hi per i'niie inr ii flri insertion and twenty-live cenl for eacl bsequen one ah ie , " '" "" 1 â€¢"""> p â€ž. the is ill mil be mo do '"â– il.ld he indictment cannol bi ed for nt the common law no i.rat was ihe bubjectof criminal pro except tine accomplished by some false token ol a public nature and promiuu ry noies of themselves are not publii 1 . 1 '"",' l,j " k ""'â€¢'' are public tokem and had 11 been averred thai ih lies il .,,,, lion resembled or were in the likeness i oi bank holes lhe indictment would have bee sufficient i lieretolbr the - m ol gl i â– interest nn 8*>i 9 x from the 3 hi of june 1836 agai . the execu tori oi i osilch and bill retained as i ihc defendant kivi i â– -. nelliia.1 i â€žâ€¢ i ,..â€ž. ii .. ,,,,â€ž.. filed ii ibe court below and a re-hearing having been ordered tbe cause was transmitted to ibis court for hearing in the second of these cases a decree was directed by the supreme court and entered in the court below and thc de cree having been enrolled a bill of re view was exhibited and a decree the e upon pronounced in the court below from which un appeal was taken o ibis court here it was objected hat the decreet complained of were decrees of thia Â« Â»Â« "Â« is *' injunctions af v s l liver d to a constable ... collect and â€¢" r â„¢ r m Â°"< h Â« lr ""' ,*'"- nr /Â»" to ined judgment and received ih 0 prevent delay and hazard to creditors '"â– , ., . i .â€ž.. i â€ž,.,â€¢â€ž but this is cllccuallv accomplished by the nionev irom the i.ch'.or vvuliuir cxecu . , ,,," ,. ' . 'â€¢,.,,, .,, ' .â€ž!,. .,:â€žâ€ž ,.,â€ž terms imposed i o elissolve the lniunc ti in held that is was a cnllcctl.ni x,r . ,'. , . r , , , luii ,,,,,â€ž ,,.,,,. lion on this ground therefore ; would bc lute allien and ibe non pavmeiit by the e . r . â– â€¢. r u instable a breach of the condition of his 'Â° fice the manifest spirit of the act bond to pa " all sums of money Â« be l Â° Â»Â° l construction should collect by virtue of bis office ' onnan v jones in equity from w akc the holder of a note ithouch not in bill dismissed ,', .. | io him who places it ill the hands the plaintiff wbb security for one (,. 01 a â– , instable for collection is entitled to tllc defendant the administrator ol the em ml payment from he conatable creditor obtained judmentb at law against therefore if payment be refused be is the principal and security in a joint ac ., the person injured who may bring the i u p'*n * vl ch tbe plamull filed this action on the office bond under the act bill to be relieved against the judgment el 17 cli ht n \ ) on tl.e ground that be was discharged in " ;/,'â– v wrights oxxa parish from equity by the laches and forbearance of i i ... , i i .,â€ž.., the creditor the facis constituting this i sil ,-. in lc.i t.t lese ill nil ncsv . , , . Â° , ; -" ' , , ' equitable ground weie proved by thc trial awarded deposition of 0 the principal debtor and aciononajusiico udgment Â» â€žâ€ž , 0 i e question was whether be was . lhe trial iho judgment berng proved uu ' ror he mu . be defendant offered the ju tice as ., wltneas recovered either to cannon the o shew that tne judgment was confessed , defendant ; ye hcf.ue him at a plat e o it o hi county ! , , d dcfea ,^, the loint hefow reirr ei this evidence , . . , . â€¢; , , i , ,- . i '"-". ,, , , , , ,. â€ž - ,â€ž, : c-1.,1 n in win b event be would bc liable r "" '" ""* ( z v " ' ' 'â– ;' "â– "* ? l lo the cost of one suit only whereas if *â€¢","â– '' ';''\ , lv v v asl ' l cerds against riuiiion the latter ol ram v hunt 3 h ss 5 z this court r(l , iv , r Â« ns , ( . hc cos(5 ,,,â€ž of ruled that assumpsit would not he n â– i â€žâ€ž., ,, ro ,,', , . j one , g . will derive justice's iudgmcnt because the nc a ,.â€ž.,.,â€ž, , k ., ll . ri , ) or receive a certain in or such judgment are not examinal in an . rnm lho decwon , n bo n ade and original suit and in tins respect an i in ' . , dlrect , iiucrc5 , cd in lha tins only likened 1 to a record but th / cau , e .", that decision has no heaimg on the pic ' ,,.,â€žâ€ž sen case there tbe existence of a '''Â»'*'"'â– ' Â»â€¢ "''"Â»"" flom w " r Â«-' judgment properly rendered was pre-sup judgment affirmed posed and the quest was as to its in an aclion for an assault and battery effect here lhe existence ol a proper the only question being the amount ol judgment is the question in issue-and damagea the judge instructed the jury until its existence is establish !. the en Â»"< y tzzz'ozeuz , â€¢â€ž. rr ,, 1 â€ž ,,., , ones on and ihat by placing themselves 0 tl proeeedbig ol slice a^e not lÂ»tb situation of the pl.lnoff and em records and do not prove ilicmsolves quiring what compensation they should they are public writings lobe proved h'ink adequate and would receive for bv parol evidence and ihat evidence may well n jury the justice of the case ny | aro cvis evidence of the mi ls hl be attained a verdict was found m.Â°fi th conclusive effect ol f 81000 held that auch instruction ,, 1 i ,. t i,!i g b is sn was no i round lor a new tn nl these proceedings when .'-â– uu siicu is so r j far from being a reason foi rejecting lhe falls and others v torrance in equity pi oof offered here that sound policy re from iredell decree for l'laiutiffs for quires thc clearest evidence to he nil ncg.o l.lora und her increase duced of the existence of ihat which if it j a purchase by an administrator enures exist is conclusive in its operation on j solely to the benefit of lhe next of kin the rights of the parties ] | and the lave purchased remains in the drvrreux v cape fear rani in hands of the administrator after the aalo equity tron wake lujunction ilia upon the same trust a before one solved wilh costs marrying an administratrix is trustee ol llen-icn's f.x'rs v lenoir and others the intestate's properly in the same man in equity from iredell , i ncr as his wile was o | ecially if he have griffin heirs v griffin's ex'rs ami notice ihat it was the property ol the in others in equity from johnston testate thc clsim ofthe next of kin to [ a iudgmcnt against an ndministratoi same statute thc bur pi us meiuinned in thin clause in to bc divided among those entitled without any reference to the advance tents or propeity bequeathed by oilier eauh would be convered with lushing i.nii rn i exci pting perhaps the icini tv l the p.d.s the appearances presi nted on the surface of the earth says this writer are precisely such as we should expect nltei sm h a 1.1 i tastn.pl c in cases of direct or pure trusts tme has no influence the estate of the trus tee is that which supports tic trust.nnd without which it could not exist ant his possession operates for the benefit ofthe cestui que trust the trustee cannot by any act of his make his estate and pos session adverse to the cmhil que ttust the trust owes its existence to aprce par'ucs"'yo ycstroytrr l !. lifanwut ?/ lilt trustee be guilty of wrongbil conduct he docs not cease thereby lo bc a trustee and of lhe same kind of trust as before such conduct â€” but il is ll thc election of the cestui que trust to c sider the trust at an end if he please and treat thc trustee as a wrong doer moore v moore in equity from enfold plaintiffs bill dismissed with the right lo contribution among co uretiea i founded o iginally not in any contract between them but on thc n.ax im of natural equity tha equality is equity among persons standing in the now iffi-'misaisnyu^atajfltow jdsll'.s of equity an understanding is inferred among co-sureties of mutual contribu tion lor men are presumed io acl in re fcrencc to the laws governing lhc ttatis action j hence t'ourts of law now give re lief by action of assumpsit lo ono surety against another but bis principle of equity can only apply to those whose situations arc equal ; for equality among those whose situations are unequal is not equity hut if one surety stipulate for a separate indemnity the equality of situation between him and his cosurety ceases and the principle docs not apply this indemnity may indeed bc reach cd in favor of thc co surely hut it is mi one of two grounds either t bit it was taken in fraud of lhc co surety or inlcii ' urf.ftra ivi'n we gave an account in the register effect produced by the simple appll a tion of suit and water to a large wen or tumour on lhe neck ol a cilizcn ol this county who bad t.ieil without success lhe prescriptions of various physicians we stated as was tho case that from the moment this bolu tion was applied ihe wen del reused gradually in size anil finally ii.ap peared we thought this a remarka ble cure and published it we vi â– :, teril.iy received a communication irom i respectable gentleman in sampson count , who states ihat being severe ly afflicted with a large 111,110:11 ol some isinil under his eye which was pro nouih ill hy most persons to he a ran cer be saw in this paper the account abo ,â€¢ allowed to ami immediately de termined to try the saline preparation lie did so and in six wicks the tu rn 1 en un ly disappeared and he add-i thai he is now perfectly well this is so simple a remedy ihat some may deride 11 but we advise persons simi larly afflicted to make the experiment hal ; : l regitttr bite of a batilesnakf state v joinner from pitts judgment ofthe superior court reversed and new trial awarded indictment on thc 3d section of thc act of 1818 ch 985 n r against a mother for concealing the death of a bastard child upon lhc constitution of ibis statute held by a majority of the court that the corpus delicti is the con cealment of the death nf a being upon whom the crime of murder could have born dead no concealment of the body would bc an offence within the statute but concealment by thc mother supples cs thc means of ascertaining whether the child was born alive or nol and raises a presumption of guilt againsl her â€” there lore it is not incumbent on the prosccu lion to shew ihat the child was born alive but thc burthen of shewing the contrary lies upon the accused hut held by one judge that the act docs not by the word " death men the act of dying the transi tion from life to death ; but concealing the lifeless body is a concealing " the death within the statute if the child wer ded lor bis benefit if taken secretly il is a fraud on lhc oilier sureties for 1st the transaction inports mutual risk ond united exertions and div the indemnity weakens llieobil ity ofthe principal to indemnify lhe oth er h taken without such secrecy.it is presumed to be dcsiglied lor lhe benefit hence if an indemnity be fairly taken by otic surety and exclusively for his own benefit be may rightfully sc it un lil he is completely indemnified itut if in this case a surplus remain alter thus indemnifying the security who has taken it the benefit of such surplus must be communicated to the ensure lies i for benevolence dictates sin b com munlcalion among ilu.-.e who arc invol ved in a connexion so intimate and a common danger and lo obey the dictates of benevolent e becomes a duly when such obedience is not prejudicial to our uf all thr following is recommended as an effectual remedy against the fatal elicits ol the lite ol a hatllesnake ii nl the common pole-root until itbe comes quite soft then mash it up iu lhe water which remains anil apply it as a poultice to the wound this remedy is s.i'nl to have been most mi i.u i:li:n ,!) tested by thc hunters l mil uiri among whom it is now in gen ral use â€” and that ulirn an imme di rn application is made the poison will not manifest itself more strungjy than llie sling '.< a bee issue of lhc body is itself proof irrcsi tiblc that life accompanied and actual il up to the stage of maturity in whi we beheld it and whether that life exi led or not at its birth is immaterial ] parkier v colquhxun and others in orange cause remanded to the court below in the court below an order of publi cation us to â– 'â€¢ c an absent life iol.it â€” and afterwards an order selling lhc cause down for healing and removing it to this otirt lt did not appear from any thing in the transcript that thc publication had been made or a/im confetso taken selves held that these principles were deci sive against the plaintiff's claim fur he became surely for thc principal without asking or wishing any indemnity ; when another name was required ibe defend ant before becoming bound stipulated for a lien as a counter security to him self the lien therefore was nol inlem ded for plaintiff's benefit the plaintiff was subscribing witness to the deed crea ling the lien and so there was n sci re cy and consequently no fraud the equably of situa'lon being thus destroyed without fraud and ther being no inteiilion lo benefit complainant it follows that he cannot call on tl.e uelcnd ant for contribution n his loss colquet v ll sin a and others from llu therford in equity master's report confirmed it i i mplslnaiii i nil i mt warts the milky juice of the ilk ol spurge or of the common fig leaf by persevering application will lo a cer tain so i remove llicm held thai setting the cause lor hear ing was irregular this coun can take cognizance of â€¢ cause removed only af ter it is set for hearing below an irre gular order setting the cause down for hearing is equivalent to no order therefore thla court cannot proceed on thomas kemp hanged f sheet llrre best i body of tl " kemp who lived by wool but died b in mp . tbeie's nothing would sufl 1 llot but with the ii â€¢. to itesl die million . had be but ss'irk'l hill liv'd upiighter lie 1 1 ' it been inn _ f t a ibeep-bitci state v palillo from lincoln judg ment arrrcsted indictment for a cheat at common law by passing certain " promisory notes as and for bank notes â€” and no aieiiiieot thai thc holes paised resem bled bank note